Annexation guidelines firming up

Wetland discussion set for March

In an effort to more clearly define specific parameters for the developers hoping to annex land north of Crested Butte into town, the Crested Butte Planning Commission tried to focus the discussion at a meeting Monday night. While some issues remain nebulous, others are becoming more concrete.

“We are trying to give you some clarity,” explained Planning Commission chairman Alan Bernholtz to the proponents of the Foothills annexation. “I think the best thing we can do in this process is set up clear parameters on issues like density, developable area, affordable housing and wetlands.”
The Foothills proponents are proposing the town annex 68 acres of land. While they own 43 acres that touch Crested Butte’s northern border, they have an option on the other 25 acres. Seven of those acres make up a triangle of land on the west side of the cemetery along Gothic Road and the other 17 acres wrap around the northwest part of the cemetery and border Moon Ridge Road.
The Planning Commission, which is made up of Town Council members, told the Foothills of Crested Butte proponents that they would not look favorably on any development north of the town cemetery’s southern border or the seven-acre triangle of land. The commission stated they would be comfortable with an acceptable range of density of about 100 to 150 units. The final number will ultimately depend on amenities given to the town. The current proposal calls for 250 units. To get to the town’s stated maximum density, the commission members said the developers may have to purchase the land that borders the Moon Ridge subdivision and keep it as open space. The commission members want a public walkway along the Slate River that cuts through the property and a park near the river.
The commission was most adamant about keeping development close to town. The members didn’t want to encourage anything that looked like sprawl toward Mt. Crested Butte, so they nixed the idea of any development wrapping around the cemetery to the east or north.
“It doesn’t seem realistic that the land north of the boundary you are insisting on will remain open space in perpetuity,” said Foothills attorney Jim Starr. “It is a separate parcel that the developers haven’t closed on at this time. Our hope was that the Planning Commission would be open to at least some building up there on that portion. At some point, if we don’t buy it, there will be development up there.”
The commission members were steadfast, however, in not wanting development up there. “I see that north part as protecting Crested Butte from sprawl up to Mt. Crested Butte,” said commissioner Leah Williams. “Could we work it as part of the proposal as open space?”
“The north part is a great tool to use as the open space requirement in the area plan that would allow for density where we think it should happen,” added Bernholtz. “I feel that putting houses to the north will change the feel of town.”
The commission generally felt the northern part of the proposal might have to be part of the package to satisfy certain area plan requirements for things like open space, but the commission would not allow housing units on the land.
As for density, the commission hedged. They were comfortable with allowing up to 150 units on the parcel next to the current northern border of town. But they wanted to cluster the units to the west of the Slate River. To get any density east of the river, the commission said the developers would have to provide amenities.
“You need density for the sustainability aspect,” said Starr. “That’s the argument for higher density on both sides of the river.”
“It makes sense to have some density on the east side of the river,” admitted Bernholtz. “But higher density over there means more cars driving in to the post office to get the mail. I say the baseline is the area plan and if they want more density over there, they have to show us why. What can they offer?”
Crested Butte citizen Glo Cunningham argued for low density to the east unless benefit is shown the town. “It’s a trade-off,” she argued. “I would also argue for the town to get control now of the north section and deal with it.”
Commissioner Kimberly Metsch pointed out that access to the east was served by just two bridges. “Having too much density over there could be a problem,” she said.
Concerning the old town dump issue, the town staff was instructed to look into options for 2.3 acres currently owned by the town by the Poverty Gulch project. That property would square off the developer’s land but it sits on the site of the old town dump that could prove to be a hazard. The proponents suggested giving them the responsibility of cleaning up the old dump in exchange for the land. They estimated that would cost between $200,000 and $300,000. The developers would also throw in an acre of land behind the current town shops to the town if the planning commission wanted it.
On the wetlands issue, Foothills partner Cliff Goss said the proponents and the town were pretty much in agreement about the wetlands map. “The issue is what will be an appropriate buffer?”
This rankled commissioner Billy Rankin. “We have defined buffer zones based on wetlands in our rules and regulations,” he said. “We don’t need to redefine buffers. If we know the wetlands, we know the buffers. It’s set.”
Despite that certainty by Rankin, wetlands will be the topic of the next meeting between the commission and the developers. Town planner John Hess told the commission to expect at least a two-hour discussion. That meeting will be held March 11.